Retrospective Review of L4 Degenerative Lumbar Spondylolisthesis
After approval by the ethics committee in our hospital, a retrospective review of 247 consecutive patients who were diagnosed with DLS between January 2019 and December 2021 was performed. All patients were recruited from outpatient spinal surgery clinics and scheduled to undergo spine surgery. 3D printing molds are used for preoperative planning and surgical simulation. The inclusion requirements included: (1) L4 DLS; (2) Meyerding grade I or II; and (3) complete radiographic data, including whole-spine anteroposterior and lateral radiographs and lateral flexion and extension X-ray of the lumbar spine. The exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) multilevel DLS; (2) isthmic spondylolisthesis; (3) history of prior lumbar trauma, tumor, infection, cauda equina syndrome, or revision surgery; and (4) surgery requiring more than two-level instrumentation and fusion. Demographic data were collected using electronic medical record reviews, including age, gender, height, weight, and body mass index. Overall, 101 patients were ultimately enrolled in the present study.
Wang D.F., Chen X.L., Han D., Kong C, & Lu S.B. (2023). The effect of sagittal alignment, coronal balance, and segmental stability on preoperative patient-reported outcomes in patients with degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis. BMC Surgery, 23, 48.
Surgical outcomes in patients with L4 degenerative lumbar spondylolisthesis (DLS)
control variables
Patients with L4 DLS
Meyerding grade I or II
Complete radiographic data, including whole-spine anteroposterior and lateral radiographs and lateral flexion and extension X-ray of the lumbar spine
No multilevel DLS
No isthmic spondylolisthesis
No history of prior lumbar trauma, tumor, infection, cauda equina syndrome, or revision surgery
No surgery requiring more than two-level instrumentation and fusion
controls
None explicitly mentioned
Annotations
Based on most similar protocols
Etiam vel ipsum. Morbi facilisis vestibulum nisl. Praesent cursus laoreet felis. Integer adipiscing pretium orci. Nulla facilisi. Quisque posuere bibendum purus. Nulla quam mauris, cursus eget, convallis ac, molestie non, enim. Aliquam congue. Quisque sagittis nonummy sapien. Proin molestie sem vitae urna. Maecenas lorem.
As authors may omit details in methods from publication, our AI will look for missing critical information across the 5 most similar protocols.
About PubCompare
Our mission is to provide scientists with the largest repository of trustworthy protocols and intelligent analytical tools, thereby offering them extensive information to design robust protocols aimed at minimizing the risk of failures.
We believe that the most crucial aspect is to grant scientists access to a wide range of reliable sources and new useful tools that surpass human capabilities.
However, we trust in allowing scientists to determine how to construct their own protocols based on this information, as they are the experts in their field.
Ready to
get started?
Sign up for free.
Registration takes 20 seconds.
Available from any computer
No download required